F, etc. does not constitute a worker even if they were

In the judgment of the first instance that rendered a not guilty verdict, there is an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to "worker status" under the Labor Standards Act.

2. Determination:

A. Whether a person is a worker under the Labor Standards Act ought to be determined in light of the form of a contract, rather than whether it is an employment contract or a contract for work, depending on whether a person providing labor to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or a workplace.

Whether a dependent relationship as mentioned above exists shall be determined by the employer and shall be subject to rules of employment or rules of service, etc. of the employer, and shall be subject to considerable direction and supervision in the course of performing the work, whether the employer designates working hours and working places and is bound by the employer, whether the employer is capable of operating his/her business on his/her own account, such as whether the employer itself is capable of possessing equipment, raw materials, working tools, etc. or having a third party employ and act on behalf of him/her, whether the employer has a risk, such as creation of profit and loss by providing labor, etc., whether the nature of the remuneration is the subject of the work itself, whether the basic or fixed wage has been determined, whether the source of the income tax has been collected, whether the continuous performance of the provision of the labor relationship and its degree, and whether the status of the employee is recognized by the Act on Social Security System, etc.